No.17 of Osvobozhdeniye produced much that is gratifying to
Iskra in general, and to the author of these lines in
particular. To Iskra because it was gratifying for it to
see. that its endeavours to push Mr. Struve to the Left had yielded some
result; it was gratifying to see Mr. S.S. indulging in sharp criticism of
half-heartedness, gratifying to read about the intention of the
Osvobozhdeniye people to create “openly and definitely a
constitutional party” with a programme demanding universal
suffrage. To the author of these lines because Mr. S.S.—“who took a
prominent part” in drawing up the declaration “of the Russian
constitutioflalists” in No. 1 of Osvobozhdentye, and hence
is no mere collaborator, but to some extent the master of
Mr. Struve—has unexpectedly rendered us a great service in our
polemic against Mr. Struve. I shall take the liberty of beginning
with this second point. No. 2-3 of Zarya carried an article of
mine entitled “The Persecutors of the Zemstvo and the Hannibals of
Liberalism,”[See present edition,
Vol. 5.—Ed.]
in which I polemised against Mr. B. N. S., who had written a preface to
the well-known Witte memorandum. In this article I revealed the ambiguity
of the entire stand taken by Mr. R.N.S., when he spoke of his Hannibal vow
to fight against the autocracy and at the same time addressed unctuous
speeches to the powers that be, to the sage conservatives, at the same
time advancing the “formula” of “Rights, and an
Authoritative Zemstvo,” etc., etc. Now that the second edition of the
“Memorandum” has appeared, the public has learned that this
Mr. R.N. S. is—Mr. Struve. Mr. Struve was highly displeased with my
criticism, and he came down heavily on me with his extremely lengthy and
extremely irate “Note to a Note.”

Letus examine Mr. Struve’s arguments.

Thefirst example of the “groundlessness and injustice” of my
“polemical masterpiece” is that I spoke about Mr. Struve’s
antipathy against revolutionaries, despite his “alleged absolutely
clear statement.” Let me cite this statement in full. “The
testimonial presented to the Zemstvo by the bureaucracy itself,”
Mr. Struve wrote, “is an excellent reply to all those who, because
of an inadequate political education or because they are carried away by
revolutionary phrases, refused and persist in refusing to see the great
political importance of the Russian Zemstvos and their legal cultural
activity.” In a note to this tirade, Mr. Struve made the reservation:
“By these words we do not intend in the least to give offence to the
revolutionaries, to whom credit must be accorded above all for their moral
courage in the struggle against despotism.”

Theseare the “documents in the case” of groundless and unjust
criticism. We leave it to the reader to judge who is right: the person who
found this statement absolutely clear, or the person who has found that
Mr. Struve has only made matters worse by “giving offence” to
revolutionaries (without naming them concretely), not only with
the “anonymous” charge of ignorance (it is not known against
whom it is levelled), but also with the assumption that they can be made
to swallow the pill of an accusation of ignorance if only it is gilded
with recognition of their “moral courage.”

Formy part, I shall merely remark that tastes differ. Many liberals
consider it the height of tact and wisdom to present the revolutionaries
with testimonials to their courage, at the same time treating their
programme as mere phrase-mongering, as a sign of an inadequate education,
without even analysing the substance of their views. To our way
of thinking, this is neither tact nor wisdom, but a piece of discreditable
evasion. It is a matter of taste. The Russian Thiers, of course,
appreciate the genteel drawing-room parlance, the irreproachably
parliamentarian opportunist phrase-mongering of the real Thiers.

Toproceed. I, if you please, “pretended not to understand that the
formula ’an Authoritative all-Russian Zemstvo’ signifies the demand for a
constitution,” and my arguments on this score “confirm once more [so
Mr. Struve
thinks I
the widespread occurrence of real revolutionary phrase-mongering, and
malevolently biased phrase-mongering at that, in our literature issued
abroad [this disgusting literary style is particularly rife in the columns
of Iskra and Zarya I," p. xii of the second edition of the
“Memorandum.” Well, as to being malevolently biased, it is difficult
for us to dispute this point with Mr. Struve: what to him is a reproach we
consider a compliment. What the liberals and many radicals call bias is
actually unshakable firmness of conviction, while sharp criticism of
erroneous views is termed “malevolent” by them. There is
nothing to be done about it. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! I have
been and shall continue to be “malevolently biased” against
Messrs. the Struves. Then there is the other charge—on a matter of
fact. Did I pretend not to understand or did I actually fail to
understand, and was it impossible to understand? That is the question.

Imaintained that the formula “Rights, and an Authoritative
Zemstvo” means unseemly playing up to the political prejudices of
the broad mass of Russian liberals, that this is “not a banner
that can serve to distinguish enemies from allies” (take note
of this!), but “a rag which can only help to attract the most
unreliable characters to the movement” (p. 95 in No. 2-3 of
Zarya).[See present edition,
Vol. 5.—Ed.]
Let me ask all and sundry: where is there any “pretence” on my
part here?? I frankly state my opinion that this is not a banner but a
rag, and I get the answer: you are pretending not to understand! This is
indeed nothing but a new attempt to avoid an analysis of the question
in essence, the question whether the “formula” is
best fit to be a banner or a rag!

Noris that all. Thanks to the kind assistance of Mr. S.S., I am now able
to adduce facts to prove something much more important. I can
prove that there was “unseemly playing up” on the part of
Mr. Struve, not only in the sense of philistine doctrinairism intended to
move the government with its modesty. not only in the sense of an
irrational desire to unite the “liberals” around a minimum,
but also in the sense of open and direct “playing up” to
supporters of the autocracy who are well known as such to Mr. Struve.
Mr. S.S. exposes Mr. Struve mercilessly and
irretrievably by saying that the “obscure and ambiguous [mark that!]
Slavophil slogan of the ’Zemsky
Sobor’”[1]
is being advanced to suit the purposes of the “unnatural
alliance” between the liberal constitutionalists and the liberal
advocates of an ideal autocracy. Mr. S. S. says that this is no more and
no less than “political juggling”!! And Mr. Struve acknowledges
receipt ... by terming the slogan of a Zemsky Sobor “vague and
valuable by very reason of its vagueness [italics ours!] and at
the same time dangerous.”

Prettygood, isn’t it? When a Social-Democrat called an even more
ambiguous slogan (an Authoritative Zemstvo) unseemly playing up,
Mr. Struve donned the mantle of injured innocence and spoke in mincing
accents about a pretended failure to understand. But when a liberal,
Mr. S. S., repeated the very same thing, Mr. Struve made
grateful obeisance and acknowledged receipt! By reason of its very
vagueness, a vague slogan was of value to Mr. Struve, who is
not embarrassed in the least to admit that be is prepared to launch
dangerous slogans as well, depending on the way the wind
blows. If Mr. Shipov appears to be strong and influential, then the
editor of this liberal newspaper will speak about an Authoritative
Zemstvo. If Mr. S.S. appears to be strong and influential, then the
editor of this liberal newspaper will speak about a constitution and
universal suffrage! Not a bad picture of the political practices and
political ethics in the liberal camp.... Mr. Struve forgets only to
consider what value his statements will have after this magnificent
metamorphosis: in January 1901 Mr. Struve demanded “Rights, and an
Authoritative Zemstvo”; in December 1902 Mr. Struve declared that
it was a “pretence” not to understand that this was a demand
for a constitution; in February 1903 Mr. Struve stated that in essence
he had never questioned the justice of universal suffrage and that the
vague slogan of a Zemsky Sobor was valuable just because it was
vague. The question arises: what right now has any person
active in politics, any Russian citizen, to assert that tomorrow
Mr. Struve will not launch a new slogan “valuable by very reason
of its vagueness”??

Letus pass to the last point of Mr. Struve’s reply. “Is it not
revolutionary phrase-mongering,” he asks, “or abso
lutely lifeless doctrinairism for Mr.
T.P.[2]
to argue that the Zemstvo is an instrument for strengthening the
autocracy?” Mr. Struve sees in this an assimilation of the ideas of the
Slavophils, agreement with
Goremykin,[3]
and the Herculean pillars of a lifeless doctrine. Mr. Struve is absolutely
incapable of understanding the revolutionary attitude towards
half-hearted reforms undertaken for the purpose of avoiding a
revolution. To Mr. Struve every reference to the double game played
by the reformers from above appears to be Slavophilism and reaction, just
as all the European Yves Guyots declare the socialist criticism of private
property to be reactionary! It is, of course, not surprising that once
Mr. Struve has become a reformer, he has lost the ability to
understand the dual nature of reforms and their significance as an
instrument to strengthen the domination of the rulers, strengthen it at
the price of granting reforms. But ... there was a time when Mr. Struve
understood this amazingly cunning manoeuvre. That was long ago, when he
was “a bit of a Marxist,” and when we fought together against the
Narodniks in the columns of the now defunct Novoye
Slovo.[4]
In the July 1897 issue of this periodical, Mr. Struve wrote about
N.Y.
Vodovozov: “I remember a conversation we had in the street in
1890—I had just returned from a summer trip through Germany, full of
new and strong impressions—a conversation on Wilhelm II’s social
policy and plans of reform. Vodovozov attached importance to them and did
not agree with me, to whom the question of the significance of the fact
and idea of the so-called ’social monarchy’ was at that time (and so much
the more so at present) decided once and for all in the
negative. Vodovozov viewed the idea of social reform in the
abstract, divorced from the real social forces that create it. That is why
he considered Catholic socialism in the main a peculiar ideological
movement in favour of social reform and not a specific. form of
preventative reaction to the growing working-class movement on the part of
the European bourgeoisie, and partly also of the remnants of European
feudalism....” So you see: in the distant past, at the time of his
youthful infatuations, Mr. Struve understood that reforms may be a
preventative reaction, i.e., a measure to prevent the ruling classes
from falling, and directed against the revolutionary class, even though it
does improve the condition of this class. I put it to the reader: who,
then, is right? Was it “revolutionary phrase-mongering” I
indulged in when I exposed the reformist one-sidedness of Mr. Struve’s
attitude towards a reform such as the Zemstvo, or has Mr. Struve
become wiser and abandoned “once and for all” the
position of a revolutionary which he at one time defended (allegedly once
and for all)? Have I become a champion of the Slavophils and Goremykin, or
did the “strong impressions” of his trip through socialist
Germany last Mr. Struve only a few years??

Yes,indeed, there are different conceptions of the strength of
impressions, of the force of convictions, of the significance of
convictions, of the compatibility of political ethics and political
conviction with the launching of slogans which are valuable by reason of
their vagueness....

Inconclusion I cannot but remark on several statements of Mr. Struve’s
that considerably “mar” the pleasant impression produced by
his turn to the Left. Although he has advanced only one democratic demand
(universal suffrage) Mr. Struve is already making haste to speak of a
“liberal democratic party.” Is this not somewhat premature?
Would it not be better first to definitely indicate all the
democratic transformations which the Party demands
unconditionally not only in the agrarian and workers’ programme
but in the political programme as well, and only then to paste on
a label, only then claim promotion from the “rank” of liberal
to the rank of liberal democrat? After all, universal suffrage is a
minimum of democracy that has been recognised even by some
conservatives who (in Europe) have become reconciled to elections in
general. But for some reason or other, Mr. Struve does not go beyond this
mini mum either in No. 17 or in No. 18. Further, we shall note, in
passing, Mr. Struve’s curious remark that the problem of socialism must be
put entirely aside by the liberal democratic party “primarily
because socialism is actually only a problem so far.” Is it not, most
esteemed Mr. Struve, because the “liberal democratic” elements
of Russian society express the interests of the classes that
oppose the socialist demands of the proletariat? I repeat, this
is said merely
in passing, in order to note the new methods used by the liberals
to “negate” socialism. Actually, of course, Mr. Struve is
right when he says that the liberal “democratic” party is not
a socialist party and that it would not be fitting for it to pose as such.

Asto the tactics of the new party, Mr. Struve could not have expressed
himself more vaguely. That is very regrettable. And it is even more
regrettable that he repeats again and again, and stresses the necessity of
“two in-one” tactics in the sense of a “skilful,
flexible and indissoluble combination” of legal and illegal methods
of action. At best, this is an evasion of the urgent questions connected
with the methods of illegal activities. And this is a pressing
question because it is only systematic illegal activity that actually
determines the physiognomy of the party. At worst, this is a
repetition of the wriggling used by Mr. Struve when he wrote about
“Rights, and an Authoritative Zemstvo,” and not about an openly and
definitely constitutional and “democratic” party. Every
illegal party “combines” illegal with legal activities in
the sense that it relies on the masses, who do not participate
directly in illegal activities, that it supports legal pro tests, utilises
legal opportunities for propaganda, organisation, etc. This is generally
known, and it is not this that is meant when the tactics of an illegal
party are discussed. The point in question is the irrevocable
recognition of struggle by this party, elaboration of methods of
struggle, the duty of party members not to limit
themselves to legal protests, but to subordinate everything
without exception to the interests and demands of the
revolutionary struggle. If there is no systematic illegal
activity and revolutionary struggle, then there is no party that
can really be constitutional (let alone democratic). And no
greater harm can be done to the cause of the struggle than by
confusing revolutionary work, which is based on the broad masses,
makes use of mass organisations, and facilitates the political training of
legal party functionaries, with work restricted within legal
bounds.

Notes

[1]
The Slavophils were a social trend in Russia in the middle of the
nineteenth century, at a time when the serf-owning system was in the
throes of a crisis. The Slavophils held the “theory” that
Russia had her own and peculiar path of historical development, one that
derived from the village commune system and Russian Orthodoxy, which, they
claimed, were inherent in the Slays. Since they held that Russia’s
historical development excluded possibility of revolution, the Slavophils
were strongly opposed to the revolutionary movement, not only in Russia,
but in the West as well. They stood for preservation of the autocracy, but
thought that the monarch should give due consideration to public opinion,
and pro posed the calling of a Zemsky Sobor (Duma) composed of
representatives of all sections of society. They were, however, against a
constitution or any limiting of the autocracy. In the peasant question the
Slavophils stood for emancipation of the peasants as individuals, and for
the village communes being allotted land through its redemption from
landlords. Among leading Slavophils were A. Khomyakov, the Kireyevsky
brothers, the Aksakov brothers, and Y. Samarin.

[2]T.P.—the pseudonym under which Lenin published his
article, “Persecutors
o!the Zemstvo and the Hannibals of Liberalism,” in
Zarya, No. 2-3, in 1901. (See present edition, Vol. 5.)

[3]
Goremykin—tsarist statesman and a typical representative of the
reactionary bureaucracy. A rabid monarchist, he was Minister of the
Interior in 1896-99, during which period he conducted a reactionary policy
and savagely persecuted the working-class movement.

[4]Novoye Slovo (New Word)—a monthly scientific, literary, and
political magazine, published in St. Petersburg by the liberal Narodniks
from 1894, and by the “legal Marxists” from the spring of
1897. Lenin published two articles in Novoye Slovo: “A
Characterisation of Economic Romanticism” and “About a Certain
News paper Article” (see present edition, Vol. 2, pp. 129-265 and
316-22). In December 1897, the magazine was suppressed by the tsarist
government.